ENG 105 Blog #6

A Film About the Journey, and the Destination

The Documentary The Cove (2009) directed by Louie Psihoyos is a film about the making of a documentary exposing the dolphin slaughter in Taiji, Japan. The majority of the film is not just the actual footage that the team, advised by anti-dolphin cruelty activist Richard O’Berry, collected, but also shows how the activists got their footage. This gives The Cove the opportunity to emphasize the need for change and encourage others to take an active role in bringing it about.

By filming the activists who worked to gain the footage necessary for the documentary, The Cove is able to have characters even though it is a documentary. Having characters gives the film more opportunities to use pathos to gain stronger support from the audience. This allowed the various different activists to tell the audience why they care about dolphins, as well as why all humans should. There stories and their visible passion for dolphins are very beneficial to The Cove’s goal to motivate people to take action against the dolphin slaughter in Taiji and adds passion to the documentary, that footage of the dolphin slaughter alone may not have.

The many testimonies filmed are particularly useful in personifying dolphins. The beautiful footage of dolphins, swimming and surfing while the male surfer activist describes a dolphin saving his life, builds pathos by helping viewers to consider dolphins to be both intelligent and human-like. Richard O’Berry describes the human tendencies and ability to make distinctions that Cathy possessed and this point is made much more impactful by also showing his passion in action as he makes this documentary. Comparing and relating dolphins to humans gives justification for the activists to break the law to save the dolphins. This makes the viewers feel sympathy when the surfers are arrested and when free-diver Mandy Cruickshank sees the blood coming from the cove, as well as a frustration towards the Japanese authorities for covering the situation up. These moments are among the many instances in which showing the making of the documentary builds pathos to help persuade the viewers.

Because the documentary shows the process of getting this footage, the viewer witnesses the danger that the activists are subjected to which helps to depict them as heroes.  Showing the heroism of the activists helps to inspire and encourage the audience to take action. This documentary shows these activists risking their freedom and lives. The viewer sees the Japanese pushing the activists, and threatening them with knifes. They are followed by cars and frequently questioned by the police. Showing and glorifying the bravery of these activists helps the film inspire others to take action. By showing the serious danger that the activists brave, the action that is asked of the viewer seems much smaller and easier.

By filming what the activists went through in order to find the truth, the viewer has a greater appreciation for the findings of these activists. Rather than simply reporting the information found, the film creates has people that the audience can care for, fear for, and most importantly admire. Additionally, this documentary was effective in inspiring viewers to take an active role in changing the situation in Taiji. Essentially, The Cove has the benefit of being a documentary and showing real life footage of the dolphin slaughter, as well as having a plot with different characters, making it a dynamic and compelling piece of work.

ENG 105 Blog #5

Man Cannot Replace What God has Created Perfectly

             If a picture is worth a thousand words, It is hard to imagine how much the film Koyaanisqatsi (1983), directed by Godfrey Reggio, is worth. Although the film is void of words, it makes a statement. The film argues that despite the beauty and greatness that can be found in technology, it cannot surpass the beauty of the natural world or replace it.

            The film shows the infinite detail and constant change in earth, water, fire, and air. The plants are continuously growing, the water is always moving, fire is flickering faster than our eyes can comprehend, and the land is constantly being changed by all of the other elements. To contrast the constant changes and movement in nature the film switches abruptly from a scene of rolling white clouds, to the dark coalmines with smoke filled air and a bulldozer approaching the camera. This contrast emphasizes the beauty of nature and the darkness and danger of technology. The juxtaposition of nature and industry scenes, shows the inferiority of technology’s detail in comparison to nature’s.

            The point of making these distinctions is not to depict technology as the ultimate evil of the world, but rather to show that even though man has made great accomplishments, nature is supremely powerful and intricate. The film shows many scenes where technology is imitating nature. For example, the film shows a skyscraper towering high above, reflecting the blue sky and clouds to show how the building imitates the sky. However, the film includes footage of great buildings collapsing in a matter of seconds, which argues that even though man’s accomplishments may be great, they are still not as powerful and timeless as nature.

            The film does an excellent job of portraying technology’s impact on society and how man made structures have diminished much of natures beauty. The accretion of scenes serves to build this story. Scenes, starting with the scenes of enormous awe inspiring canyons and dessert landscapes, then followed by a scene showing people laying on the beach then panning out to show that the beach is right by a nuclear power plant, followed by a scene in which a bird’s eye view shows the straight lines creating basic shapes of water and flat land that have been created around the plant by man, collectively show the story of how man has altered the beauty of randomness with the straight lines and simplified shapes. Later, the scene of a nuclear bomb being tested adds to the same story by showing how terribly wrong the technology implemented by man can go. This scene shows how the bomb poisons the landscape and tree, and represents technology’s poisoning and destruction of nature in general.

            The skillful selection of the order of scenes is crucial in relaying the film’s arguments to its viewers. Also, the way that different scenes are shown in succession to one another gives the film the ability to show changes being made, in order for the viewer to note the change to the natural world that is caused by technology. By using all film, Koyaanisqatsi offers nothing but evidence, which has helped me agree with the film’s argument. This film was both intelligently, and beautifully put together to show that humans should not allow technology to attempt to replace nature.

FYE Who's job is it to care?

Who’s Job is it to Care?

In light of the earthquakes in Haiti, and the recent earthquakes/tsunami/volcanoes in Indonesia I have began to ask my self this question. The Indonesian and Haitian people were not associated with the United States, yet in both cases the world as looked to the U.S. to help in the recovery necessary after natural disasters. I can see that as Americans and fellow human beings, we feel for these people. However, I find it interesting that we have homelessness, disease, and a terrible foster care system in our own country, which people don’t seem to feel the urge to throw their money at. 

What is it that makes Americans care so much about events such as Haiti, when they have seem to lost interest in their own people? Is it the president’s reaction that Americans use to gage their reaction? Perhaps it is just the medias coverage of issues that muster the attention and compassion of the American people. The media is a business of supply and demand, so what is it that makes the media focus more on natural disasters than on the everyday issues in the U.S.? Perhaps the death packed action of a natural disaster is just more interesting than the slow death and turmoil of the American people.

ENG 105 Essay #3

How Should the U.S. Reform Immigration?

            Illegal immigration has a significant effect on all Americans and accordingly, the various solutions offered for immigration reform are debated passionately. Because illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants are so integrated into our society, the solutions offered for illegal immigration can be very emotionally received. With an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, illegal immigrants have taken on a significant role in our schools, job-market and society (Nelson).

            A significant way in which illegal immigrants affect all American citizens, without a doubt, is economically. Illegal aliens often enjoy public schooling, emergency medical care, use of roads and bridges, food-stamps, and various other amenities paid for in tax dollars that are meant for American citizens. It is obvious, and essentially undisputed that illegal immigration has become a burden on society, and that actions must be taken to reform the U.S.’s current policies. What is disputed, however, is what approaches should be taken in this reform.

            Some believe that the solution to the immigration issue is to pass harsher laws against illegal immigrants and utilize mass deportation to drain the country of the current illegal immigrants. These beliefs are typically associated with the Republican Party. They are using state laws to attempt to deter illegal immigrants and get rid of those already in the U.S. using deportation. However, there are other options available, such as assimilating illegal immigrants into society by providing them with opportunities to benefit society, and become citizens, as most democrats would support. The most effective solution, as well as a mutually agreeable one that will allow the root of the problem to be addressed, is for Congress to pass legislation providing illegal immigrants with opportunities to earn citizenship, as well as legislation that will prevent businesses from soliciting the work of illegal immigrants.

Arizona has addressed the immigration problem by making laws to increase the states power to identify illegal immigrants. States are limited in which ways they are allowed to approach the immigration issue. States only have the power to help enforce the policies that are created by Congress. In other words, the only option states really have is to crack down harder on illegal immigrants and those who hire them. Arizona moved forward in this policy because the current National Policies are ineffective, and the result of this ineffectiveness is an especially large financial burden falling upon states that border Mexico, such as Arizona. The fear that Hispanic immigration endangers American ideals and institutions is a fear shared by many, but should not justify unconstitutional actions that are supported by Arizona. As Joe Pace writes in Salon, this sentiment is the result of “xenophobia and partisan politics” (Pace). It is understandable that Arizona feels so desperate to take action. However, the bill that Arizona has passed, and which has been partially revoked by the Supreme Court, is not an acceptable solution.

The controversial law passed by the state of Arizona in April of 2010 is called SB1070 (Archibold). The law required all immigrants to carry documented proof of their citizenship at all times. The law also gives police the power to make warrantless stops of anyone they believe may be an illegal immigrant. Furthermore, these people may be detained until they can provide proof that they are in fact in this country legally (Showdown in Arizona). This law obviously brings up serious issues with racial profiling and the high possibility of legal immigrants being harassed.

It is important to realize that the stringent new law, giving police free-reign to stop anyone suspected or appearing to be an illegal immigrant, subjects many legal citizens of the U.S. to frequent unreasonable searches. This means that Hispanics who have come to the U.S. legally, or were born here are inconvenienced by frequent police stops simply because of the color of their skin. This law gives police permission to harass U.S. citizens who have done nothing wrong, and regardless of their heritage, this goes against the constitutional laws of the United States.

As a result of the discriminatory legislation, the Latino-American population, in particular, is gaining a distrust of policemen. This distrust was best predicted by President Obama, who predicted that the Arizona law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe” (qtd. in Archibold). In creating this mistrust and resentment, the legislation is causing racial separation gaps to widen. With the fact being that the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States are the Hispanics, racial separation and tension is  detrimental to society (Greenblatt). It is important that the American people, particularly voters, keep in mind the rights of Hispanic citizens, even though Hispanics are a minority because racial tension caused by the violation of the rights of a minority has negative effects upon all of society.

            Another approach classified under “stricter enforcement”, would be to deport all or many of the illegal immigrants living in the country. This is also most frequently associated with the Republican Party. Deportation, however, is an extremely ineffective approach to take and comes with many moral complications. Deportation is extremely expensive. To deport all of the illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, estimated in 2007 that the cost would “be at least $94 billion” (Francis). Deportation is morally complicated because to send illegal immigrants back to their impoverished countries of origin is likely to send them to death or difficult lives without opportunity. It would also mean that the illegal immigrant parents of children that were born here would be deported, leaving their children behind. John McCain stated, "If you're prepared to send an 80-year-old grandmother who's been here 70 years back to some other country, then frankly you're not quite as compassionate as I am," expressing the moral complication of simply deporting all illegal aliens (qtd. in Greenblatt). Not only is deportation costly and complicated, but it would also be pointless. Immigrants risk their lives and leave their homes because they are desperate for opportunity. If immigrants are already willing to risk their lives in order to come to the U.S., the chance of being deported will surely not deter them.

            One of the best ways to deter illegal immigrants would be to eliminate the opportunities for illegal immigrants to earn money in the U.S. Immigrants most commonly come to the U.S. in search of better opportunities. If the laws against hiring illegal immigrants were to be enforced, illegal immigrants would no longer have job opportunities as motivation to come to the U.S. By taking away this motivator, employers will also be forced to offer acceptable wages to workers, and these jobs will be open to legal American citizens. Some claim that employers cannot find American workers who are willing to do the work that illegal immigrants do, such as Stephen Colbert who remarks that, “Apparently, even the invisible hand doesn't want to pick beans" (Colbert). However, a more accurate claim would be that Americans do not want to do the manual labor that illegal aliens have been exploited to do, for such low wages. Admittedly, products will cost more as a result of paying workers more reasonable wages, but these higher wage earners will save taxpayers money, by requiring less welfare benefits. Holding employers accountable is an important part of addressing the cause of the illegal immigration issue.

            Another important part of immigration reform is what we should do with those who have already come to the U.S. It is unfair to condemn every illegal immigrant as a criminal. For example, it is not the fault of the children who were brought to the United States by their parents,  that they came here illegally. Specifically for this group, the DREAM act has been created. The Development, Relief, and Education, for Alien Minors, or DREAM act, would offer illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, an opportunity to earn their citizenship. The U.S. has an estimated 2.1 million undocumented workers who were brought to the U.S. as children (Pace). Unless one honestly believes that these kids should “trek back from whence they came in order to bring themselves into compliance with our immigration laws,” it is unjust to condemn them as criminals (Pace). It is important that Americans consider the moral implications of laws, and also realize that not all illegal immigrants should be considered criminals.

            Not only is the Dream act socially just, but also a significant economic improvement. This act would create higher wage earners, who will benefit the economy, and these workers would actually become taxpayers. Therefore instead of having to pay to find and deport illegal immigrants, the government could “provide an opportunity for them to live up to their full potential as future doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs and make greater contributions to the U.S. economy” (Hing). The DREAM act would give young illegal aliens the opportunity to either go to college or join the military. Not only would both of these options convert people leaching off of the system into tax-payers, but it would also benefit the economy by creating higher wage earners living in our economy. As reported in a study done by Arizona State University, the average person with a bachelor’s degree earns around $750,000 more in a lifetime than somebody with only a high school diploma (Hing).

            An important distinction to be made about the DREAM act, is that it is not an amnesty giveaway. Those brought here as youths are not simply “given” their citizenship because the government and American people feel bad for them. These individuals have to earn their citizenship by becoming productive and contributing members of society. The many, Republicans in particular, who would argue that the DREAM act is just a giveaway should consider whether risking ones life in the military for freedom is giveaway.

            In conclusion, the attempts made by states to crackdown on illegal immigration create various other complications, and do not address the root cause of illegal immigration. To really address the immigration issue, uniform nationwide laws must be passed through Congress. Additionally, these laws should enforce policies, such as policies against the hiring and exploiting of illegal immigrants, because these job opportunities are a major motivator for people to illegally come to the U.S. It is also important that we are just and reasonable. The DREAM act is one piece of legislation that could be passed by congress that would give those who are illegal immigrants that came to the U.S. at no fault of their own as children, an opportunity to earn the status of a legal citizen. The immigration issue in the U.S. is a delicate subject because, after all, we are nation composed of immigrants, and it is important that U.S. keeps this in mind when deciding how to reform the current policies.

           

Works Cited

Archibold, Randal C.  “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.” The New 
               York Times. The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2010..

Colbert, Stephan. “Stephan Colbert Opening Statement.” Project: Address. You 
                 Tube, 24 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. Television.

Francis, David R. "Costs will rein in Arizona's immigration crackdown." Christian
             Science Monitor 30 Aug. 2010: N.PAG. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.

Greenblatt, Alan. "Immigration Debate." CQ Researcher 18.5 (2008): 97-120. CQ Researcher. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2008020100>.

Hing, Bill O. “Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act.” ImmigrationProf Blog. 

             N.p. 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 4 Oct. 2010.

Pace, Joe. “When the Right Filibusters its Own Ideals to Death.” Salon.com. 
                      Salon Media Group, 22 Sept. 2010. Web.  28 Sept. 2010.

“Showdown in Arizona.” Editorial. The New York Times. New York Times, 28 
                 Jul. 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. 

ENG 105 Blog #4

“Clear in His Mind, but His Soul is Mad”

            The film Apocalypse Now Redux (2001) is a contemporary version of Conrad’s novella, Heart of Darkness. In the film, many themes are carried over, as well as many characters. The character Kurtz has strong similarities in both the film and novella. Both mediums emphasis the importance of maintaining Kurtz’s image, and what he represented to those in the jungle.

            The way Kurtz is described by characters is very similar in each medium. In both works, Kurtz is described by those around him as “a great man.” Each Kurtz is held in high esteem by all of the natives he commands as well as by most of civilized society. The way the Russian in Heart of Darkness considers Kurtz to be perfect and superior to normal men, is similar to the way the journalist perceives Kurtz. The journalist in the film says, “you don’t judge the colonel like an ordinary man” because to the journalist, and all of his followers, Kurtz is more than a mere man. Kurtz is put upon a pedestal that he does not belong on.

            In both mediums, Kurtz’s reputation is important to uphold. The company wants to protect Kurtz’s image so that people still believe that imperialism is a good and progressive institution. Similarly, the U.S. military wants to protect Kurtz’s image because to the American people, he represents America’s part in the war as protector of freedom and liberty. Both the company and the military are represented by Kurtz and must take care that he is maintained as a man of civility and compassion in the minds of the people, even though this is far from reality.

            Because of this need to protect Kurtz’s image Willard and Marlow are sent to remove Kurtz from power. Kurtz’s honesty appeals to both Marlow and Willard, upon there arrival to the depths of the jungle where Kurtz resides. In the scene of Apocalypse Now, where Willard is waiting to kill Kurtz, he gets to understand Kurtz and feels a connection keeps him from leaving or killing Kurtz for days. Marlow also has a fascination with Kurtz and feels a connection to Kurtz’s honesty that makes him feel connected to Kurtz despite the simultaneous hatred he has for what Kurtz has done. Both characters experience “a fascination with the abomination” that is Kurtz.

            Although there are many strong similarities between the Kurtz of the novella and that of the film, the same scene building up to Willard killing Kurtz, shows that there are definite differences between the characters and relationships in the novella and film. The Kurtz of the novella resists leaving the jungle as much as he can. In contrast, the Kurtz of the film wants to be put out of the misery he is living in. Willard describes that everybody including Kurtz himself wanted him to fulfill his mission. This exposes the difference between the two. The Kurtz of the film realizes that he has lost control and finally wants to be able to give up, even though he is not able to stop himself, whereas the Kurtz of the film wants to go on ruling as a god in the jungle forever. This difference shows a difference in the personalities of the two men.

Republic 2.0 Chapter 8

 Chapter 8 Freedom of Speech

Chapter 8 discusses how the first amendment right to freedom of speech applies to television. Though it is fairly easily understood that freedom of speech is meant to give individuals the right to voice whatever opinions they may have, it is less clear how it should be enjoyed by groups. Sunstein declares that there is a distinct difference between the two, and that the first amendment rights were created to protect the rights of individuals.

Because T.V. networks are not people, Sunstein argues that they should not enjoy a total freedom to say whatever they want without regulation. The government enforces laws that benefit T.V., such as in copyright laws, creating a give and take relationship between the two. The government gives protection of the law, so Broadcasters must give the government a small amount of input.

This chapter also discusses situations when freedom of speech is taken too far, and ought to be restricted. For example, some people use freedom of speech on the Internet to create directions of how to create a bomb, when, where, and even on whom. Another example is when a site posted a list of doctors who had performed abortions, and posted on the site when two of the doctors had been murdered. These are both cases in my opinion when people should not be able to claim innocence due to first amendment rights, and go to show that freedom of speech should not be absolute.

Now to deal with these issues we must ask, “how can we make it legally clear that the first amendment has limitations without losing the freedom of expression it was intended to provide us with, and what limitations should we specify”? It is one thing to decide what we believe is morally right, but also another to decide how the government can facilitate it. There are countless scenarios where we must decide if freedom of speech is being exercised or abused. This, perhaps, is why we have left these decisions to the court system, so that each case may be looked at individually. However, isn’t it unfair to never state that the first amendment has limitations, and then to hold people responsible for over-stepping its boundaries? Isn’t it also unfair to expect judges to decide each case without giving them something that legally says, there is a limitation to free speech? 

FYE Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “Revoked”

Just this past Thursday, a Virginia judge ruled that the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell policy” is unconstitutional and issued an order against it. This injunction will immediately give homosexual Americans the right to enlist in the military, and active service members the right to openly admit to being gay. However this is not necessarily anything for the LGBGT community to celebrate just yet.

Though Obama has been an open and vocal supporter of doing away with the policy, he is expected to file a countersuit to this court decision. The policy has been for sometime in review of the president and the pentagon. It is expected by many that Obama will file a countersuit to revoke the injunction until the policy has been internally reviewed by himself and the pentagon.

This could mean disaster for any service members that choose to become openly gay at this time. If the court ruling is knocked down, all of the new service members, and members who choose to come out, could be kicked out of the military. Though gays are technically legal to be openly so in the military, it comes with a catch. No freedom has truly been gained for the gay community yet, but this ruling is sure to hasten the process of the pentagon and the Presidents’ decision making.